Does the RCD / RCR require ISO standards to be used ?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Two or three weeks ago I made a statement in a thread that was then queried and I was asked to provide evidence that it was correct.

 

The statement was along the lines of :

 

“The use of ISO standards is not mandatory but, if a boat is built using the relevant ISO standards then there is an automatic acceptance of compliance, but if the boat is not built using the standards then the builder can be asked to provide evidence that the build is to at least the same, or higher, standards”.

 

I have since trawled thru' several 1000 pages of RCD documents that I have on file and cannot now find that exact statement, but, have found effectively the same comments in two paragraphs of a 366 page document produced by the RSG.

 

Any text highlighted in 'bold' is done by me and is not so highlighted in the original document.

 

Who are the RCG ?

 

The Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG) The Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG), consisting of all Notified Bodies and other parties with valid interest, has been established to assist in the uniform application and interpretation of the actual version of the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD). The composition of RSG comprises the following parties: · Notified Bodies · The Commission · The Recreational Craft Industry · User Organisation · European Standardisation Bodies.

 

Where suitable standards are not available, the RSG has established uniform guidelines to assist with demonstrating conformity with the Essential Requirements of the Directive. The RSG Guidelines will be reviewed when suitable standards become available and amended as necessary. The list of harmonised standards in support of the RCD is available on the RSG website www.rsg.be. It should be noted that Article 14 of the Directive recommends the use of harmonised standards as this ensures presumption of conformity with the Essential Requirements of the Directive. RSG urges the industry and Notified Bodies to use harmonised standards. Harmonised standards are standards adopted by the European standardisation organisations and the references of these adopted standards have to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and to be transposed into national standards by the Member States. The use of harmonised standards is voluntary.

 

Remember that there are ISO specifications covering not only each component product, such as hoses, wiring, glass, engines, etc etc, but also for the build methods and performance of the final product (the boat)

 

The article that covers acceptance of compliance

 

Article 31: Presumption of conformity

Where a conformity assessment body demonstrates its conformity with the criteria laid down in the relevant harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements set out in Article 30 in so far as the applicable harmonised standards cover those requirements.

 

But – in a later paragraph the concept of what happens if the boat is “not built to the ISO standards, or, non ISO standard components  are used”

 

 4. Verification of conformity by examination and testing of every product

4.1. All products shall be individually examined and appropriate tests set out in the relevant harmonised standard(s) and/or technical specifications, or equivalent tests, shall be carried out in order to verify conformity with the approved type described in the EC-type examination certificate and with the appropriate requirements of the legislative instrument. In the absence of such a harmonised standard, the notified body concerned shall decide on the appropriate tests to be carried out.

4.2. The notified body shall issue a certificate of conformity in respect of the examinations and tests carried out, and shall affix its identification number to each approved product or have it affixed under its responsibility. The manufacturer shall keep the certificates of conformity available for inspection by the national authorities for 10 years after the product has been placed on the market.

 

Hopefully that is sufficient evidence of the concept of ‘automatic compliance’.

 

[Tacet]

As an aside, that relates to the EU style RCD rather than the Brexit RCR.

 

But your long promoted assertion has been the reverse.  The above indicates (as no one has doubted) that meeting the ISOs is deemed to achieve compliance with the RCD.  However, it does not say that one must reach equivalent standards to the ISOs to comply with the RCD/RCR.  Your extract says that if you don't meet ISO standards, you need to comply with the legislative requirements i.e RCR Essential Requirements - which is pretty obvious.

 

Your position has been, for example, that a fuel tank inspection hatch, an insulated return to the horn and 1mm minimum wall thickness gas pipes are all necessary to comply with the RCR.  None of these are mentioned anywhere in the RCR  - but are (so you say) required to meet ISO standards and so are also mandatory for the RCR.  Others say that complying with the RCR is sufficient to comply with the err....RCR.

 

So to clarify your current thinking, is a fuel tank inspection hatch essential to comply with the RCR?  The question is not whether having a hatch is good practice nor whether such a hatch is somehow contrary to the RCR.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

As an aside, that relates to the EU style RCD rather than the Brexit RCR.

 

Are you not aware that the RCD and RCR are identical (bar the name) ?

'We' made a commitment to keep the RCR exactly in line with the RCD otherwise we would not be able to sell boats into Europe.

 

Not of much interest to NB builders but the UK does have extensive boat sales into the EU (Princess yachts alone has a turnover of over £300 million , much of which is for sales into the EU

 

 

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

...................or equivalent tests, shall be carried out in order to verify conformity with the approved type described in the EC-type examination certificate and with the appropriate requirements of the legislative instrument.

 

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Your extract says that if you don't meet ISO standards, you need to comply with the legislative requirements

 

Any boat not built in compliance with the ISO's must have equivalent test undertaken as listed compliance list AND must meet legislative requirements.

Under 4:1 it states that where the ISOs have not been used then the Notified Bodies will dertermine what tests need to be conducted to ensure compliance.

 

I have provided what I think is suitable evidence - you obviously disagree, so why don't you provide documentary evidence that supports your position ?

 

Edited January 1 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

I would imagine this is exactly the same as aviation legislation. There is hard law, which is fairly concise and mostly just indicates aims. Then there is the AMC - acceptable means of compliance. And sometimes the lower level guidance material.

The only requirement is to be compliant with the hard law. But by far the easiest way to do that is to follow the AMC. If you choose to follow your own path there would be considerable “up hill” to demonstrate that your different approach is nevertheless fully compliant with the hard law.

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are you not aware that the RCD and RCR are identical (bar the name) ?

'We' made a commitment to keep the RCR exactly in line with the RCD otherwise we would not be able to sell boats into Europe.

 

Not of much interest to NB builders but the UK does have extensive boat sales into the EU (Princess yachts alone has a turnover of over £300 million , much of which is for sales into the EU

 

 

 

 

Any boat not built in compliance with the ISO's must have equivalent test undertaken as listed compliance list AND must meet legislative requirements.

Under 4:1 it states that where the ISOs have not been used then the Notified Bodies will dertermine what tests need to be conducted to ensure compliance.

 

I have provided what I think is suitable evidence - you obviously disagree, so why don't you provide documentary evidence that supports your position ?

 

I don't think UK law incorporates Directives 14 & 30 - but am happy to be corrected on that.

 

The extracts you quote are not statutory - only have a bearing on interpretation.  The section relating

 

"happens if the boat is “not built to the ISO standards, or, non ISO standard components are used”

 

 

and subsequently discussing compliance cannot mean, as it would be a non-sequitor, compliance with ISOs; it must be statutory.  As a matter of grammar (and I would not rely on this point) "standards" are "met" and "orders" are "complied with".

 

I can't provide chapter and verse that shows that one need (necessarily) not meet ISO in order to comply with RCR anymore than I can show that you need not follow the green cross code to do so either.  

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I would imagine this is exactly the same as aviation legislation. There is hard law, which is fairly concise and mostly just indicates aims. Then there is the AMC - acceptable means of compliance. And sometimes the lower level guidance material.

The only requirement is to be compliant with the hard law. But by far the easiest way to do that is to follow the AMC. If you choose to follow your own path there would be considerable “up hill” to demonstrate that your different approach is nevertheless fully compliant with the hard law.

Indeed, that is what I think and I see that Alan has mysteriously give a greenie!

 

The requirement is to comply with the law i.e. RCR and, in a particular the Essential Requirements.  The ISOs are higher standards and it may well be that meeting these is deemed to be more than good enough to ensure compliance with the RCR.

 

Where I differ with Alan is that I can't see any statutory obligation to meet the ISOs and hence any requirement for two wire horns, inspection hatches to fuel tanks and minimum 1mm wall thickness gas pipes.  None of these are directly required by the RCR and, despite his bluster, Alan is unable to show a statutory link.  

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, Tacet said:

The extracts you quote are not statutory - only have a bearing on interpretation. 

 

The RSG is the official department who give rulings on the 'meanings' of the various articles to ensure consistency in application and understanding by each of the notified bodies.

[David Mack]

Oh dear! Once again Alan is confusing the legal requirements specufically set out in the EU Directive (implemented in the UK asthenia Recreational Craft Regulations) and guidance documents produced by industry bodies.

The current consolidated version of the EU Directive can be found at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013L0053-20131228

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It should be noted that Article 14 of the Directive recommends the use of harmonised standards as this ensures presumption of conformity with the Essential Requirements of the Directive.

No. What Article 14 says is:

"Article 14

Presumption of conformity

Products which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements covered by those standards or parts thereof, set out in Article 4(1) and Annex I."

 

This is merely a statement that components that comply with the harmonised standards (the EU implementation of ISO standards) are deemed to comply with the relevant aspect of the Essential Requirements. But that does not mean that components that do not comply (or have not been certified to comply) with the relevant  ISO do not meet the Essential Requirements. And whilst the implication of Article 14 is that using ISO-compliant components is a straightforward way to meet the Essential Requirements, I don't think that the way this is expressed in the Directive amounts to a recommendation.

 

Article 31 is again a simple statement that Conformity Assessment Bodies can presume that components that comply with the appropriate ISO meet the relevant part of the Essential Requirements.

 

Neither of these articles mandates the use of ISOs. They just affirm the status of the ISOs as sufficient (but not necessary) to comply with the Essential Requirements, and also to avoid the potential for further discussions about the appropriateness of an ISO in a particular circumstance.

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But – in a later paragraph the concept of what happens if the boat is “not built to the ISO standards, or, non ISO standard components  are used”

 

 4. Verification of conformity by examination and testing of every product...

This whole section 4 is not part of the Directive. I presume it comes from your "366 page document produced by the RSG" (for which you have given neither the document title or source details). As such it is no more than guidance on good practice, and in no way does it support your contention that there is a legal requirement to use ISO standards.

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

 

I can't provide chapter and verse that shows that one need (necessarily) not meet ISO in order to comply with RCR anymore than I can show that you need not follow the green cross code to do so either.  

As a matter of general law, one can do or not do anything unless the law says otherwise. So there is no chapter and verse to quote when a legal requirement doesn't exist.

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

 

Where I differ with Alan is that I can't see any statutory obligation to meet the ISOs and hence any requirement for two wire horns, inspection hatches to fuel tanks and minimum 1mm wall thickness gas pipes.  None of these are directly required by the RCR and, despite his bluster, Alan is unable to show a statutory link. 

Exactly!

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The RSG is the official department who give rulings on the 'meanings' of the various articles to ensure consistency in application and understanding by each of the notified bodies.

The text you have quoted doesn't say that.

 

"The Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG) ... has been established to assist in the uniform application and interpretation of the actual version of the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD). 

...

Where suitable standards are not available, the RSG has established uniform guidelines to assist with demonstrating conformity with the Essential Requirements of the Directive."

 

"Assist" and "guidelines" fall well short of imposed legal obligations.

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Oh dear! Once again Alan is confusing the legal requirements specufically set out in the EU Directive (implemented in the UK asthenia Recreational Craft Regulations) and guidance documents produced by industry bodies.

The current consolidated version of the EU Directive can be found at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013L0053-20131228

No. What Article 14 says is:

"Article 14

Presumption of conformity

Products which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirements covered by those standards or parts thereof, set out in Article 4(1) and Annex I."

 

This is merely a statement that components that comply with the harmonised standards (the EU implementation of ISO standards) are deemed to comply with the relevant aspect of the Essential Requirements. But that does not mean that components that do not comply (or have not been certified to comply) with the relevant  ISO do not meet the Essential Requirements. And whilst the implication of Article 14 is that using ISO-compliant components is a straightforward way to meet the Essential Requirements, I don't think that the way this is expressed in the Directive amounts to a recommendation.

 

Article 31 is again a simple statement that Conformity Assessment Bodies can presume that components that comply with the appropriate ISO meet the relevant part of the Essential Requirements.

 

Neither of these articles mandates the use of ISOs. They just affirm the status of the ISOs as sufficient (but not necessary) to comply with the Essential Requirements, and also to avoid the potential for further discussions about the appropriateness of an ISO in a particular circumstance.

This whole section 4 is not part of the Directive. I presume it comes from your "366 page document produced by the RSG" (for which you have given neither the document title or source details). As such it is no more than guidance on good practice, and in no way does it support your contention that there is a legal requirement to use ISO standards.

As a matter of general law, one can do or not do anything unless the law says otherwise. So there is no chapter and verse to quote when a legal requirement doesn't exist.

Exactly!

The text you have quoted doesn't say that.

 

"The Recreational Craft Sectoral Group (RSG) ... has been established to assist in the uniform application and interpretation of the actual version of the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD). 

...

Where suitable standards are not available, the RSG has established uniform guidelines to assist with demonstrating conformity with the Essential Requirements of the Directive."

 

"Assist" and "guidelines" fall well short of imposed legal obligations.

I am unsure whether Alan continues to believe two wires to a  horn are a statutory obligation or not.  It would be a very odd arrangement if the RCR Essential Requirements set out a few necessaries but failed to mention the need to meet other standards altogether.

 

Anyway, you express the position much better than I, so I'll try to give up the unequal struggle and drop the matter.

 

 

[matty40s]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are you not aware that the RCD and RCR are identical (bar the name) ?

'We' made a commitment to keep the RCR exactly in line with the RCD otherwise we would not be able to sell boats into Europe.

 

You are a bit like Ladythingy, just because we like to think we keep things correct, doesnt mean the EU will accept them as correct. 

If we dont get rid of the present Gov, things could get very nasty with the EU....

And most of the rest of the world frankly.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

As such it is no more than guidance on good practice, and in no way does it support your contention that there is a legal requirement to use ISO standards.

 

I'm not sure if you are not reading what I actually post, or if you are just being argumentative.

 

I have, a number of times, said that the use of ISO standards IS NOT mandatory, but, if you use the ISOs then there is an automatic assumption of compliance.

What I have also said is  : If you DO NOT USE the ISO's then you will (possibly/probably) need to prove equivalence.

 

It is even highlighted in the 1st post in this thread ..................

 

23 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The use of harmonised standards is voluntary.

 

Which is pretty much what Nick said applies in the air-craft world. and is my understanding of the RCD/RCR (& to answer @Tacet) that is why I gave Nick a greeny.

 

 

16 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I would imagine this is exactly the same as aviation legislation. There is hard law, which is fairly concise and mostly just indicates aims. Then there is the AMC - acceptable means of compliance. And sometimes the lower level guidance material.

The only requirement is to be compliant with the hard law. But by far the easiest way to do that is to follow the AMC. If you choose to follow your own path there would be considerable “up hill” to demonstrate that your different approach is nevertheless fully compliant with the hard law.

 

I think we are actually in agreement, but either I am not making my position (or the position of the RSG) clear. or you are misreading, or misunderstanding what I post

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think we are actually in agreement, but either I am not making my position (or the position of the RSG) clear. or you are misreading, or misunderstanding what I post

 

 

And that is where brokers demanding PCA comes in, they feel they need to ensure the boat does meet the underlying statute and choose to do that via the RCD/RCR paperwork or a PCA. In theory if the vendor produced full documentation, but not the RCR/RCD paperwork, that proved the boat met the statute then the broker should accept it, but I bet Mr Jobsworth would still demand a PCA.

[nicknorman]

36 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think we are actually in agreement, but either I am not making my position (or the position of the RSG) clear. or you are misreading, or misunderstanding what I post

 

 

I rarther thought I was agreeing with you, just adding additional explanatory and supporting material!

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, nicknorman said:

 

I rarther thought I was agreeing with you, just adding additional explanatory and supporting material!

 

I also thought you were, so there is at least one other person who has understood what I have posted.

And, it appears that Tacet agrees with you, yet disagrees with me.

 

14 hours ago, Tacet said:

Indeed, that is what I think and I see that Alan has mysteriously give a greenie!

 

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

What I have also said is  : If you DO NOT USE the ISO's then you will (possibly/probably) need to prove equivalence.

And what I and others are saying is that there is no legal requirement to prove equivalence. And every document you come up with claiming this turns out to be guidance or recommended practice, but does not have the force of ĺaw.

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I also thought you were, so there is at least one other person who has understood what I have posted.

And, it appears that Tacet agrees with you, yet disagrees with me.

 

 

I will yield to the temptation and repeat part of an earlier question.

 

Do you still consider an inspection hatch in the fuel tank is a mandatory requirement for vessels subject to the RCR?

 

If not, we are now largely in agreement.

Edited January 2 by Tacet